BASIRANBI Vs. JAITUNBI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the order passed by the Court below dated 14.07.2011, whereby, her application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was rejected.

(2.) By filing application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC Annexure P -5, the petitioner stated before the Court below that Khusi Khan, Halku Khan and Mangal Khan were real brothers All the aforesaid brothers have expired. Mangal Khan had no issue and his only wife expired. The property in question was never partitioned by any oral or written arrangement. It is stated that the petitioner has direct interest in the property and she is a necessary party. The Court below has rejected the said application by holding that the matter is pending since 2006. All the proceedings have come to an end and matter is fixed for final hearing. The application was rejected on the ground of inordinate delay in filing the application and also on the ground that petitioner has failed to show how she is a necessary party in the matter.

(3.) SHRI D.D. Bansal, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 on the contrary supported the order passed by the Court below.